Other

Jarvis bike lanes to be eliminated

Earlier today, Toronto City Council voted to eliminate bike lanes on Jarvis, Birchmount and Pharmacy as part of its adoption of the 2011 Bikeway Network Update, which passed with amendments 28-9. Jarvis will eventually be returned to its former state — i.e. a fifth signaled traffic lane will be re-installed — despite the fact that the original staff recommendation for the street called, which called for additional pedestrian space.

Council did, however, vote to coordinate efforts to restore the street to its prior state with the implementation of separated bike lanes on Sherbourne in 2012. The bike lanes on Birchmount and Pharmacy, on the other hand, will be removed in 2011. The estimated cost to remove the bike lanes and re-install the fifth lane of traffic on Jarvis is $200,000.

With two proposals for bike lanes on Jarvis on the table and myriad evidence to suggest that increasing road capacity on Jarvis won't help with traffic congestion it seems perfectly logical that city council would choose a third option: getting rid of the bike lanes entirely and putting back the fifth lane of traffic - wait...what?!

Hey Anthony. What suburbanites are driving home up Jarvis? Last I checked, Rosedale, Lawrence Park and Leaside were all well within Toronto proper. All this crap about so called 'suburbanites' needs to end. This city is more than just the trendy West end.

This is exactly what Jarvis cyclists can do now. Without bike lanes, the law requires cyclists to take the full lane as a normal vehicle. Take the full lane. Don't go to the side of the road because it just invites cars to squeeze through you and potentially kill you. Take the full lane, then, if drivers start complaining, Ford can get his head out of his ass.

Birchmount and Pharmacy have bike lanes?? Amazing. Sherbourne is already too narrow for cars, let alone carving off more for bike lanes. Jarvis has very little commercial activity, so why it would need more pedestrian space is begging an answer. The only really good idea is to do a Granville-esque number to Yonge and curtail traffic while enhancing pedestrian amenities. As for bike lanes, if the total number of daily riders is only 900, I don't see how the majority of taxpayers can justify underwriting their cost.

While the outcome of this decision is maddening it was highly predictable.

Going back 2 years when this proposal (installation of bike lanes) came out of nowhere (which it did)...

I said then "This is a pedestrian/streetscape project. Pedestrians are being sand-bagged, this will cause deep division between 2 activist communities (bikes + pedestrians) who should be working together. Moreover, this is too much political capital for a project not even in the bike plan, there are other lanes we should be fighting for...this will not end well"

I expressed those sentiments, in more or less those words here and on various cycling blogs and directly to two well known activists who championed this proposal.

Now look what we have...

We got nothing....what a profound waste. It was political naivete at best to push this project.

Had we gone with pedestrian one, the curbs would have been moved, and it would have been a $6,000,000 project to un-do it. Not 200k.

It also would have calmed traffic and been beneficial to cyclists.

While I'm disappointed by the regressive council decision today, I'm just as mad at foolish decisions by the cycling activist community 2 years ago that led directly to this outcome.

Ward redistribution based on the latest census would increase the number of downtown councillors by at least 2, maybe as many as 4.....look at the votes on some of today's agenda and think about that....

Now consider Counc. Holyday....is in favour of redistribution as a matter of fairness.

Maybe time to work w/the other side to get an outcome that will change Council for a decade or more.

Frankly, painted lines aren't much more than psychological window dressing and offer limited protection to cyclists. I agree with G above. Ride in the lane. That way there are two options for motorists; either change lanes to pass, or kill you/me. I've always found that they will pass you in the left lane and have had more 'close calls' in bike lanes and 'hugging the curb' than riding about where the cars right wheel goes. By the same token, respect the rules of the road. When someone is making a right-turn stay behind them. Don't try and sneak by on their right--even if they're not making a right turn. If there's no bike lane then you/we are traffic. If we stop this bickering and realize that there are bad drivers and good drivers; bad cyclists and good cyclists, we can all make use of the roads--bike lane or not--and get where we're going without killing each other. At least that's what I'd hope and like to think about my fellow Torontoians.

I drive a car, and totally admit that bikers get on my last nerve when im drivng downtown. I think that people on bikes sometimes forget that i am in a vehicle and if i hit you (my fault or yours) you will get hurt, BADLY! i am in fear of smoking someone on a bike that is driving in my vehicle lanes by choice because they think they are fast enough or that its just the same as being in a car, and whats even worse is when someone on a bike has to be in my lane because there are no bikes lanes.

In reply to the comments about "just taking up the car lanes"
its foolish to think it makes sense to be blocking traffic on purpose and riding where its dangerous to spite the decision of removal. but and its going to have to happen now. which is even more folish.

I am PRO bike lanes. i hate sharing the road with bikers when i dont have to, and im sure they feel the same way. ive seen too many people get hit on their bikes in this specific jarvis neighborhood. especially on sherbourne where there NEDS to be lanes. i dont know why common sense runs dry with this city.

They did NOT in fact vote to delay the elimination of the Jarvis lanes until Sherbourne is done. Minnan-Wong hijacked Councillor Wong-Tam's motion and changed the wording to "coordinating" the two, which does not explicitly guarantee ANYTHING about the Jarvis lanes being kept until Sherbourne is complete. He claimed that his intent was the same as her's, that the lanes should be kept there until Sherbourne is ready, but that we could begin work on things like putting the lights back up. But his amendment to her motion doesn't guarantee anything regarding the availability of one or the other of these routes at all times. He refused all requests to clarify the wording of his amendment to solidify these purported intentions, and the AMENDED motion was passed, which guarantees exactly NOTHING for the safety of cyclists wishing to travel north-south in this part of the city. His amendment was devious and wrong and should have been rejected by council. Of course then, Wong-Tam's motion would likely have been shot down outright, but the result is exactly the same - NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER of a safe north-south route at all times. Let's tell it like it really is here.

So the reversible lane for Jarvis is back, that pretty much destroys any of the progress made into making Jarvis into a livable street for pedestrians or anybody who happens to live in the area.

What a massive waste of taxpayer money for virtually no savings in commute time. All of that money spent, and we're re-spending even more to put everything back the way it was. How do Ford supporters justify this? Was Jarvis this bastion of efficiency when it had the reversible lane? Of course not, the city's own report says the difference in commute time is marginal.

Yes, Minnan-Wong amended Wong-Tam's motion such that there is no explicit guarantee, but he calls for both projects to be done in 2012.

I have altered the sentence in question to reflect his use of the word coordinated.

Here's the amended motion for those interested:

"City Council rescind its decision related to the bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street, and co-ordinate implementation of the proposed separation of bike lanes on Sherbourne Street from Bloor Street to Lake Shore Boulevard as an alternative, and staff be directed to take all steps required to revert Jarvis Street to its pre-existing operation such that implementation can be achieved as soon as possible, with all work to be completed on Sherbourne Street and Jarvis Street in 2012."

I will be taking up the entire traffic lane with my bicycle from now on. I will not be squeezing to the far right, but will ride in the middle or left, to avoid the sewer grates, potholes, glass, screws, nails, and other debris on the road.

Gotta tell you. I watched this debate yesterday afternoon on the teee-vayyy and, I was gobsmacked. I wondered a) why the hell am I watching this and b) these children get paid 90 plus thousand a year? Frances Nunziata is an illiterate fool and a laughable orator, and the bickering in place of substantive debate was gut wrenching. This decision is shameful, the way they came to the decision was shameful and if Mr. Ford wants to talk about "gravy train" and savings perhaps the first thing he should do is find ways to make his council meetings more efficient and idea laden and stop demanding, or have his lackies demand, an apology every time his feelings get hurt. Progressive cities have progressive thinkers, and ideas for how to minimize congestion and traffic...this city has no transit or cycle policy...if i am the first person injured riding in an area where a bike lane has been removed there are 27 councillors getting personally sued.

it totally makes sense to put yourself in danger. even better, why dont all the bikers just try and get hit so we can get a bunch of people hospitalized due to their own risks. maybe then people in cars will be so scared of getting sued that noone will drive. and you guys get ALLLL the road space?

why is sharing and banding together so hard in times where its needed. i think we al agree that bikers and drivers shouldnt be in the same lanes. but does it make sense to create a issue between the two causing the problems to evolve?

Great idea! The less bikers on the road the better. I know that sounds awful - but the few "bad" bikers in the city will at least be off those roads - though I do feel bad for those "good" bikers (by good I mean law abiding) that will lose yet another route in the city.

Carly, in the absence of dedicated bike lanes, bike's have a legal right to share the full lane, not squish to the side.

I'm actually all for it; I have some hopes that in doing so, it will reiterate to bikers that they're not zipping along on the sides of the roads - and therefore, the rules of the road - and thus have a responsibility to obey all traffic signs/laws. (I'm pro-bike-lane, but anti-stupid-or-illegal-biking.)

Use the middle of the lane like a car. Don't zip through red lights. Use hand signals for stopping/turning. Stop for streetcars, etc.

And it's thinking like that that will put motorists, pedestrians and fellow bikers in danger just because you are pissed off. Way to go. No wonder people disklike bikers so much - and I am really only speaking to those with a mentality (read: infantile) like you.

M, more bikes actually makes conditions safer for everyone. Less bikes on the road is never a good thing, no matter how you slice it. You also don't improve people's cycling habits by removing bike lanes. What kind of absurd twisted logic is that?!? How about investing in public education, training, media campaigns, etc ... none of which the City has ever had the funds to do in any meaningful way.

DJP - I do agree with you about the public awareness - I think I would be more onside with bikers if there was more of a movement to make bikers aware that they too are "driving" a "vehicle" and they cannot and should not feel that they are above the rules of the roadd. I guess I am just pretty jaded about this topic. But you do make some great points, I will give you that.

A lot of 'brave' cyclists on this comment board. Go ahead and try to take up the whole lane. Hope you have your cemetery plot purchased as sooner or later someone will hit you. Do you still pout and cry when mommy and daddy are late with your allowance too? Grow up.

He's referring to the Simpsons quote made earlier in the comment section -- relax. :-P

As for the cyclists that are saying "LET'S TAKE UP THE WHOLE LANE", let me tell you as a motorist, what I perceive this statement to be. That you're upset at motorists for the elimination of the bike lanes and not your government. I don't normally drive on Jarvis, but if you're going to act out loud to piss people off, then understand that you're going to put yourself in danger. I can see alot of cyclists just taking a quaint stroll in the lane without noticing that the posted speed limit is 50 km/h. As a human being, I don't want to see that; however, if you're doing it as you're legal right to be on the road and out of SILENT PROTEST, make sure you take care of yourselves out there. It sounds like it's about to get ugly.

I'm in favour of sharing the roads and I hope for the best for cyclists, but lets hope cooler heads prevail and cyclists can get what they want and not put themselves in danger.

As someone who has ridden both the bike lanes of Jarvis, and it's previous state - it's narrow without. Moreso than a lot of streets.

And as a fairly confident and safe cyclist, I do feel the need to take up more of the lane to feel safe - which could slow down traffic further. I can take up however much of the lane I need to feel safe. I hope that motorists are aware of this right to all who travel the road.

Cyclists had what they wanted - space to be out of harms's way. That's why this setback is so depressing.

I think we're all in favour of sharing the road, which is what is currently happening -> ~14m of motorized traffic lanes, ~2.5m of bike lanes. Dedicated the entire width to mixed traffic, with those kinds of volumes, is not sharing.

Also, if a lane is too narrow for autos and bike to ride side-by-side, then cyclists are supposed to take the entire lane. This is the law and this is the case on Jarvis, since under the 5 lane scenario, each is only about 3m wide. Although it doesn't feel like it, it's actually safer for cyclists to take the lane on Jarvis. If cyclists try to ride against the curb (which many tend to do since traffic is so intimidating on this street), it encourages motorists to pass dangerously close to them. Again, this is why this council vote is awful in so many ways.

I live at Church and Charles and I drive on Jarvis on a weekly basis (although not during rush hour). I also bike on Jarvis on a much less frequent basis. I saw no problem with the Jarvis bike lanes, but I think I would actually prefer to ride in a separated bike lane on Sherbourne. Still, this seems like a waste of money for what is essentially a sideways move.

For what its worth, I've cycled in major cities in China and they have separated bike lanes, and its a very good system. But they have probably 5 times the car traffic and 10 times the bike traffic, so I'm probably comparing apples to oranges.

Joe, this is not about spite or pissing people off. If you look at the statistics for road crashes involving bicycles, it's much more dangerous to ride in the gutter of major streets than to take the whole lane.

If drivers have issue with that, they should take up as well with their councillor to get bike lanes.

I see little progress being made so long as city hall council makes snippy comments on "running down/taking out cyclists" and ignoring, walking out of presentations or not even listening to the pro lane side. I'd like to see some working together with drivers but as long as we have this council, I think its a pipe dream.

Its a bit unfair to say the cyclists have to make all the concessions. If drivers can't spare a 1,5 m lane, then they're going to have to live with us taking the main lane.

(oh and before you harp on Bad bikers, I just watched two cars plow through yonge/college intersection nearly running down 10-15 people at a go, yelling at people for being legally where they were allowed to be. )

I'm curious: for those who regularly use the existing Jarvis lanes, why the uproar about switching to Sherbourne? (Taxpayer money aside and assuming Jarvis is not removed prior to Sherbourne being completed)

$200 000 buys more gravy than $0 would ... That alternate lane not only causes confusion it gives a false sense of adequacy of lanes ... I wonder which of Dictator Ford's private sector friends is gonna get that contract ??

A lot of what's going on at city hall don't make sense and smells foul , very foul

Who voted for these goons ?!

At least we no the names of all the dumbies ! No mistake of voting for them again !!

how would mostorists react if they were told there were no more car lanes on Jarvis, but that's okay they can use the car lanes on Sherbourne? Would you still say why the uproar?

The uproar is over the fact that we're going backwards instead of forwards. The uproar is over the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to remove bike lanes when those very same bike lanes are encouraging more cyclists to get on the road and are not having a detrimental effect on motorized traffic flow. It is an incredible waste of money and the only thing it will accomplish is to put people in danger.

As an experienced cyclist I'm not too worried about the bike lanes disappearing, but I can see how less experienced riders won't enjoy having to 'hog' a third of a car lane with rage-filled drivers ramming them from behind and running them over while complaining that Cyclists Always Ignore Traffic Laws.

As an experienced cyclist I'm not too worried about the bike lanes disappearing, but I can see how less experienced riders won't enjoy having to 'hog' a third of a car lane with rage-filled drivers ramming them from behind and running them over while complaining that Cyclists Always Ignore Traffic Laws.

GRA, This question is raised quite often. The short answer is, because many people need access to places on and adjacent to Jarvis, not Sherbourne. Many people live, work, and play on Jarvis. A bike lane on Sherbourne doesn't help you access your apartment on Jarvis, for example. Jarvis provides important access to local destinations, just as any other street would.

We can't always be thinking of bike lanes as something for riding through a neighbourhood. For some, this is true, but for many, it's about safer local access.

Also note that clearly there's demand for Jarvis, since after only a year, the number of cyclists using the new bike lane tripled. It would also be nice to know how the counts compared on Sherbourne, but I'm not sure the City conducted such a "control count".

To the cyclists who are going to take the whole lane: If you do so, I'm fine with it. But if you want to be treated as traffic, stop squeezing by on my right. TYou cannot have it both ways. Either you are traffic, or you are roadkill.

The Sherbourne Street bike lane is more rough than the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix.
I ll pay you money if you can go one light to the next while sitting on your saddle.
Of course that money will go towards your saddle sore treatment..

Sherbourne right now is a mess to bike on. Pot holes, parked cars, a bus...lots to deal with. Jarvis is a smoother ride. What will happen is that Sherbourne won't be patched up with a good lane for a while, and we will lose Jarvis immediately. So what do we do?

Drivers aren't the ones crying and whining like little 6 year olds because they lost their bauble. Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists. Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back. Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people. The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy. I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads. Nope, only whining about this one street. As I said before, Grow up.

Thanks for the feedback Jennifer, DJ, and Human Fly. I can comiserate about Sherbourne - as I kid I used to ride to and from the lake on it and it was a mess then - but safer for a 14 year old than riding on Jarvis. I live in a different part of Toronto now and my riding is with my kids and not in the core.

Next question: I can't find on toronto.ca any maps with the proposed bike lanes and hydro corridors that were voted on today. Anybody have a link? Thanks.

Some Guy, it's not about having it both ways. Cyclists are to always ride on the right side unless there isn't room, in which case, they are to take the full lane. On Jarvis, there isn't enough room. Although traffic is so heavy, that cyclists often aren't comfortable taking the lane as they should. This creates a very dangerous, not to mention uncomfortable, situation.

As someone who uses the Pharmacy bike lane on a regular basis (and I admit, they're aren't very many of us), I will be sad to see it go. However, it's such a short route and the road is in such bad shape, so I'm not sure installing it in the first place was the best idea - but to now remove it seems a senseless waste of time and money.

But, I can't complain too much because the second half of my commute to work (Scarborough Town Centre) is being significantly improved with the upgrades to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor bike path - something that I'm glad went ahead before Ford and his minions (including my own unfortunate councillor, Michelle Berardinetti) could stop it. But who knows, maybe they'll decide two years from now to rip all that out too!

No, instead they're making death threats to any cyclist who dares ride in their lane. That is more mature how?

"Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists."

Which is why traffic is so bad. Get more people out of their cars and on to bikes and you will see less congestion on the roads.

"Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back."

Cyclists also have to get to work. Why are we considered less important?

"Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people."

Wrong. According to the study that the city paid for, Jarvis did not work well. It was a dangerous street and the middle lane was confusing to many people. That's why council originally put the bike lanes in (and many who voted against the bike lanes today voted for those very same bike lanes last year, including Mammoliti - proving the Fordists just love to waste tax dollars).

"The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy."

The truth is, the bike lanes hindered no one. They added, at most, a few minutes to car trips. Meanwhile bike use tripled, not because the bike lanes made cyclists "happy", but because they made cyclists feel safe.

To my knowledge, there is no plan, the whole bike-lanes-along-hydro-corridors was just an idea mentioned during the election. There likely won't be any more bike lanes, and even if they built trails along hydro corridors it's not like those trails would serve most urban cyclists. When I want to get from St. Clair/Bathurst to Yonge/Queen it's necessary to ride on the road. Unless Rob Ford demolishes large swaths of the city, seperated bike trails seem pretty foolish considering WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXTENSIVE NETWORK OF PAVED ROADS. :-)

You missed the mark (pardon the pun) on several points, so I will address them in order...

"Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists."

Is that any surprise given how we've been building the city for the past several decades? If you look at areas of the city that support cycling better, cycling rates are actually very high. The point is this auto-oriented model of city building has to change. Hence my point about Toronto being stuck in the dark ages.

"Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back."

Cyclists have jobs too. Interestingly, they tend to be the higher paid and more professional types.

"Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people."

Not for cyclists and pedestrians.

"The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy."

It had no impact on vehicle volumes and only slightly increased vehicle travel times. The City's counts showed the number of cyclists using the lanes after only a year tripled to 890. This is a remarkable increase and based on experience elsewhere, there is no reason to suspect the trend would not continue.

"I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads."

Because is hasn't happened yet and they are hugely complicated to design and build, not to mention controversial. Based on the contempt this council appears to hold for cyclists, I'm sure few cyclists expect them to do a good job of it. These are only empty promises. Frankly, the city should be doing both. All streets, ultimately, should be safely accessible to everyone, regardless of how we choose to travel. We already have bike lanes on Jarvis - their removal is very real.

"As I said before, Grow up."

I think we would all appreciate it if you would grow up and read up on the topic before commenting.

Wrong on all counts Human Fly. Miller's 'study' said what he wanted it to. That 'few minutes' hindrence adds up when compounded by thousands of cars, day after day. All for a couple hundred bikers. Sorry you lost your precious bike lane that will be replaced by more and improved ones one street over. Grow up, you can't always have things just the way you like it. And motorists are only replying to the petulance and whining put forth by the militant cyclists who are vowing to make driving more difficult just to prove that they are so important that they can't share the road like normal people.

Mark, clean the sand out of your nethers. What's happening now is that "militant" cyclists are no longer going to appease drivers by taking less of the lane than they are legally allowed to use, as the vehicles that bicycles really are.

I hope you're not too used to cyclists leaving less than a metre between themselves and the curb, because a minimum of 1 metre from the curb or parked cars is where I am riding from now on, and I'm going to encourage anyone I see riding closer than that to move out for their own safety. The MTO recommends exactly that, and I see no reason to gainsay them.

Of course, that means that drivers can no longer pass cyclists without changing lanes; that's the law. Cyclists obey the law, drivers obey the law. That's what everybody wants, right?

From the article "Jarvis will eventually be returned to its former state — i.e. a fifth signaled traffic lane will be re-installed — despite the fact that the original staff recommendation for the street called, which called for additional pedestrian space."

City council override staff often. In this case they did it twice. That's what they are elected do.

So I guess saving less than two minutes for a car drive from the top of Jarvis to the bottom is worth a persons life or safety. The couple hundred was actually just under 900 and growing

"I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads. " And which new bike lanes are these, we have the promise from a lying fat man that we will get a few more bike paths somewhere in the future (if we have the money) Excuse me if I am not jumping for joy

This is less to do about bike lanes and more about vengeance. Rob does not like David Miller, even though he won the election and Miller is gone, he has this childish need to punish miller by breaking the corner stone to his election campaign 'respect for the taxpayer'
He is using the inner city to unleash his tantrums, feeling that those in the core still support Miller and will not support him. He has fulfilled his own prophecy by continuing to alienate the city. Destroying neighborhoods does not garner support.
Jarvis is a residential street from top top bottom. It should never have been an on and off ramp to bypass the inner city.
What will it cost to piece the city back together after Rob and his comrades are gone. Miller spent a lot of money to do that, too much many say, but he got results.

It has everything to do with bike lanes. Ford and the current majority of council are clearly not fans of them. I also think you underestimate how unpopular taking away the 5th lane on Jarvis was. Residents of Matlow's ward and those north were making a stink about removing the lane for pedestrians long before the bike lanes were proposed. If you don't remember, pull up online archives from before the last vote. Sticking it to those downtown progressives is just "gravy" in this case.

Like it or not, Jarvis is a natural route for bypassing much of the core of the city to go north. It has been since 1940s when it was widened. It's also the only street between Yonge and the Don Valley that has access north of Rosedale Valley--Sherbourne ends in Rosedale, Parliament at Bloor while Church goes west. That doesn't have to preclude bikes using it.

Did the price of gasoline drop below $1.00 a litre? Why are we giving more roadspace to the automobile when we are paying so much for fuel? Oh, I forgot, Rob and Doug are millionaires, its no problem for them. And the other councilors are genuflecting before them.

As someone who lives there (Rides a bike and drives). I would be ok with this if they made the fine for any automobile that stops on Jarvis huge. The lanes to me always tended to let drivers know that they shouldn't be stopping on the road. Which has almost caused me serious injury many times.

Though, this does seem like a huge waste of money spent getting to this point, only to spend more money to reverse it. I thought we were on a tight budget. This seems like we aren't...

"[C]yclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share. [...] In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it."

"For cyclists, you must ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line, clear of sewer grates, debris, potholes, and parked car doors. You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist behind you."

I am both a car driver, TTC user and cyclist. In spite of the frankly rather small percentage of ornery car drivers, bicycling is my preferred method of transportation. It's generally as fast if not faster than driving or TTC. It costs less - not just for me personally but for the city as well. Unlike cars and trucks, the lighter weight bicycles are far less hard on the road surface, not to mention that the fuel required to run them is much cleaner.

As someone who frequently uses Jarvis as a means for transportation both by vehicle and by bike, I never really noticed much difference in traffic when the bike lanes got put in. Seems kinda foolish to take them out. Plus, getting rid of that middle lane with the rotating directions will make it much easier for tourists that didn't know what to do with the middle lane and would end up making really stupid (and dangerous) left hand turns.

Looking at who voted for what, it bothers me that so many (all?) councillors from the east end voted to remove the lane. I wonder if any of them even considered the alternative.

The thing is, it's not sustainable for most of Torontonians trips to be in automobiles. Not because of some pansy environmental hippie nonsense (well, yes, because of that), but (also) because downtown roads can't keep getting more car lanes, but downtown housing & employment will keep growing. More efficient alternatives are the only long-term solution.

"[C]yclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share. [...] IN URBAN AREAS WHERE A CURB LANE IS TOO NARROW TO SHARE SAFELY WITH A MOTORIST, IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE THE WHOLE LANE BY RIDING IN THE CENTRE OF IT."

"For cyclists, you must ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line, clear of sewer grates, debris, potholes, and parked car doors. YOU MAY OCCUPY ANY PART OF A LANE WHEN YOUR SAFETY WARRANTS IT. NEVER COMPROMISE YOUR SAFETY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF A MOTORIST BEHIND YOU."

Elizabeth; I know what the posted speed limit means, please don't patronize me as I do understand the rules of sharing the road with cyclists.

My initial comment was made out of a fear of cyclists revolting in spite of motorists and putting themselves in danger or starting an unnecessary war. Pardon me if I'm the rare one who is not only concerned my safety, but others on the road with me.

I will go toe to toe with cyclists when there is a dispute, but as an advocate of a progressive city, it's a shame to see something as simple as bike lanes being eliminated.

- Only city in North America to cancel a funded LRT!
- Only major city in North America whose mayor ignored its gay pride festival!
- Only major city in Western Hemisphere to build negative km of bike lanes a year!

We hope you enjoy driving through on your way to nicer cities elsewhere. Bye bye!

As a resident on Jarvis St. and a daily user of the entire length of the bike lanes, this decision is absolutely deplorable and beyond common sense.

What was the motive for removing the bike lanes? The only reason given by councillors (and people on this site) is that it has increased congestion and gridlock. Nothing else. This isn't even based on reality.

The study has indicated that congestion remains unchanged, and car travel times have increased by approximately 2 minutes, WHICH CAN LIKELY BE RECTIFIED by recalibrating the left-turn signal at Gerrard.

Meanwhile, cycling has increased 300%.

What kind of logic is it, to fix the supposed issue by immediately choosing the most expensive option -- remove the bike lanes and reinstall the 5th lane -- at a cost of over $200K? Not even bothering to try the cheaper, obviously easier option of recalibrating the traffic signals? That's not respect for taxpayers. That's simply dogmatic, spiteful governance.

The other glaring issue people who don't live in the area don't seem to understand is the fact that Jarvis St. has become essentially a highway for suburbanites. It is acting as pseudo-border. Everything east of Jarvis is poorly developed and neglected.

The real purpose of the bike lanes was to abolish that division, so as to create unity between the east and west areas of Jarvis, strengthening the area as an actual, singular neighbourhood. It's part of the Jarvis St. beautification project whose aim was to make it a more livable, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood.

But now, without those lanes, that project is as good as dead. This is actually the most important loss.

"… if five hundred people sign a petition to have council change the ward boundaries, and council doesn’t respond within ninety days, “the electors who signed the petition may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.” That could put council in the position of having a solution dictated to them, instead of solving the problem themselves. …"

I agree that most people that support Ford are extremely regressive. The options that I see are:
1) re-districting
2) de-amalgamation
3) People with progressive values coalescing into a voting bloc (or/unless we can bring in run-off voting)

It is not 1940 it is 2011, the exodus from DT to the suburbs is over, in many ways it has reversed. To move people out of the core to the suburbs and beyond has been addressed in a much better manner with the DVP, The Gardner, the 401, the 427 among others.
It is time to put Jarvis back to what is was, a residential street running through several neighborhoods.
This is vital to the growth and economic development of DT east side.
Miller saw that, he wimped out and just added bike lanes, but it was an important gesture none the less.
Fords reasoning for keeping this senseless highway that stifles development and divides peoples neighborhoods is purely spiteful. There is no reason for taking out the bike lanes and returning the centre lane. He has a report that tells him that. Yet he and his suburban counterparts have chosen to ignore that. needlessly spending 200K, tax money he takes from the very people who live DT. Some respect for the taxpayer

Cyclists AND drivers are often both terrible. Both need to improve their skills, obey the law, and show some basic decency to each other.

The other day, I was making a left hand turn in a very quiet, low-traffic residential neighbourhood. I signaled and moved into the centre of the lane to turn. An idiot in a car behind me(who MUST have seen me signal) speeds up, crosses the dividing line into the oncoming lane and makes a right-hand turn in front of me, cutting me off as I'm beginning the left-hand turn. WTF?! And they want to licence cyclists where there are licenced DRIVERS on the road doing this sort of nonsense?!

We won't see the off-road trails that are promised as Ford's alternative to bike lanes. Some have been built this spring, but they're projects initiated by the previous administration. The paths to be built atop the Bluffs were delayed for local consultation (unlike the Jarvis changes) at today's Council meeting. There are signs posted to trees above the Bluffs telling people to get out to public meetings to oppose them. There is graffiti on the road at the bottom of Chine Dr. that reads:

$$SAVE MONEY$$
STOP THE PAVING
LISTEN TO TAXPAYERS

Even these mostly unhelpful recreational paths will be killed in Rob Ford's Toronto. The area above the Bluffs will remain an unofficial off-leash dog run. The same dynamic will probably take place in other areas where bike paths are suggested through what now is green space mostly enjoyed only by locals. The first KPMG report suggested spending on bike infrastructure was a possible area for cost saving. This will be used as the necessary excuse come budget time to avoid building the promised off-road paths and maybe even the separated lanes on Sherbourne.

What's the endgame here? As someone already pointed out, the population in the downtown core is skyrocketing. Look at the two new condos built at the top of Jarvis. Are all these people expected to be driving? Wider roads cannot be built anymore in the downtown core unless we start taking away sidewalks, digging under the city, or building gardiner expressways. How is getting rid of bikes not going to cause more congestion? How is killing an extensive transit plan not going to cause more congestion? How do these people want to solve the issue of congestion as I've heard nothing to this effect.

Thank god. I'm so glad for this! I'm sick of driving up the street and having to move over for a cyclist who doesn't stay within the lines because I'm scared I'm going to hit them. I'm also fed up with cyclists not following the rules of the road and stopping at red lights and stop signs. The cyclists think they can do what they want. This looks good on cyclists who fight for rights, when they're the ones who don't follow the rules of the road, they can disagree with me all they want but they know they're wrong! I'm all for this. Cyclists should also have to pay for bicycle insurance each year, and be charged by police when pulled over and they're not in possession of this insurance. This insurances covers running pulling over at walkways when blowing red lights and stop signs and being held 100% accountable for their actions.

I interned in Toronto for 9 weeks and back in New York now but I love Toronto so I think two things need to happen to prevent your beloved city from being "Americanized" are to vote this current administration out at the next election and take advantage of that law that cyclists can use full lane for their navigation. Go cyclists and Toronto!

Bike lanes on University Avenue was lost by a single vote on city council last year. Lets start with University Avenue.

Therefore, all bicyclists should use up the entire right lanes on University. If a vehicle is parked in a right lane, shift over to the center lane but take up the whole center lane as you bike past the parked vehicle, but moving back over to the right lane.

Yet when you drive on the 401, you're constantly thinking "man all these drivers are doing the safe, legal thing, every time" ? Probably not. Drivers and cyclists are both terrible, but as a driver your mind Others the cyclists because they're different.

As motorists vote for more car traffic, more gridlock, more frustration, and higher fuel costs, then snicker and claim they "won", I can only tell them not to enjoy the "victory" too long. The inactive lifestyle enabled and symbolised by the car causes almost the same array of debilitating and life-shortening conditions as cigarette smoking. Mayor Ford can claim to make it easier for you to drive, but he can't make driving healthier for you, he can't make car dependence practical for this city, and he can't do anything about the inexorable upward pressure on fuel costs.

I'm sorry but Jarvis has been a residential street with traffic running through it since the wealthy moved north into Rosedale a hundred years ago. Blathering on about the suburbs and highways when Jarvis and by extension Mt Pleasant go to neither indicates to me that you are blowing a lot of smoke. Whether or not there is an extra lane for cars, two bike lanes or just extended space for pedestrians is certainly not vital to the growth and economic development of the east side.

This is Ford's master plan. By turning every biking/public transit event into a money-wasting mess, he is making the public associate both issues with disaster. The same thing will happen with the ridiculous subway extensions he's making. They are in obscure areas where no one will ride them. In a few years, if they actually get finished, he will say, "Look at all the money and time that went into this project, and look at the results." He is doing all this on purpose.

Every morning I head from the annex to George and Adelaide. Even though Jarvis has bike lines on it I still opt to take Church, despite it's lack of bike lanes the road is way more even and people don't seem to go as terrifyingly fast 12 inches from my face.

If Mayor Ford had a master plan to make Toroto a car-centric city, I doubt he would have sold off the lands that would have made up the right of way for the Richview Expressway-- the very expressway, proposed in the '50s, that would have whisked him and his brother downtown. Rob Ford has a coherent philosophy of servant government: he believes in giving people what they want. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for traffic planning.

After visiting over 30+ global cities, the ones that have put a focus on pedestrian and multi-use needs like cycling have been more enjoyable and livable.

Toronto constantly shoots itself in the foot on these issues. I vote we need an independent elected urban planning board that _does not have ties_ to the current political leaning.

If you are a driver willingly spewing hate like "I'll aim for you if you're on a bike" replace bike with "on foot" or "pushing a stroller" ...stop and listen to what an asshole you sound like for one minute.

That's a pretty weak argument. Rob Ford selling off some land does not prove anything about his policies or goals. If you have any other evidence to back that up, I'd be happy to hear it. As for his servant policy, I agree. All it does is create cheap fixes, but it doesn't work because you can't please everybody and none of these fixes make sense for the long-term.